Searching \ for '8051 VS PIC' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: '8051 VS PIC'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'8051 vs PIC'
1994\05\16@232025 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   I recently bought a DS-750 kit for doing development work on the Philips
   87C750 microcontroller. The only thing is, the EPROM version of these
   chips cost about $15 each which seems a bit expensive compared to the
   PIC chips.  Are the 8051 controllers more powerful than the PIC's?

If the $15 prices is for the windowed EPROM version of the chip, then
it is comparable to the PICs (the low priced versions are not windowed.)

THe 8051 familly is at LEAST broader and more widely sourced than the PIC.
You can get 8051 controllers capable of addressing 64k each of program and
data memory (both 8bits wide) with A-D converters and 84 pin packages from
both Intel and Phillips.  Whether the "small" 8051s are as useful as a
small PIC, and whether a broader line makes the 8051 more "powerful" are
pretty meaningless questions that are probably pointless to debate.  I
believe that a PIC has a faster "minimum instruction cycle" than most
8051s - another meaningless metric.


   Also, has anyone some idea as to the cheapest, yet effective way to get
   into PIC development? How much is the PICstart kit these days?

The Picstart kit is $180 from digi-key these days.  I think parallax still
has their cheaper programmer/downloader ($99?)

Without low volume distributers like parallax and digikey, the 8051 series
of "tiny" processors is unlikely to create nearly as much interest as the
PIC has in the last few years...

BillW

1994\05\17@010445 by STEVE454

flavicon
face
I recently bought a DS-750 kit for doing development work on the Philips
87C750 microcontroller. The only thing is, the EPROM version of these chips cost about
$15 each which seems a bit expensive compared to the PIC chips. Are the 8051
controllers more powerful than the PIC's?

Also, has anyone some idea as to the cheapest, yet effective way to get into
PIC development? How much is the PICstart kit these days?

Thanks for any advice. spam_OUTSteve454TakeThisOuTspamdelphi.com


'8051 VS PIC'
1999\03\03@131722 by mlsirton
flavicon
face
Hi Again,

On  3 Mar 99 at 12:02, Clark, John wrote:
> products?  I am looking at the 17C7xx family, but wanted feedback from some

Some other PIC qualities I like but forgot to mention:
* "High" current I/O ports with tristate control and programmable
pull-ups on some chips.
* On-chip reset circuitry and oscillator (some chips, + brownout
detector on some chips)
* Wide range of operating conditions (temperature and voltage).

Guy - .....mlsirtonKILLspamspam@spam@inter.net.il

1999\03\03@155341 by Clark, John

picon face
Exactly what I was looking for -- thanks.


John Clark, Software Engineer
JohnCspamKILLspaminter-intelli.com
(317) 715-8175 (voice & fax)

Interactive Intelligence, Inc.
3500 DePauw Blvd., Suite 1060
Indianapolis, IN  46268-1136
http://www.inter-intelli.com

> {Original Message removed}

1999\03\03@161049 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
Ralph Stickley wrote:
<snip>
> 3. If you have large I/O requirements (24 +pins), a PIC and
> shift registers will probably be more expensive then an 8051
> or some variation thereof.
> (Ok, this is a guess...I haven't priced 8051's in a while).

An At89C8252, a 8kbytes flash code memory with 1k eeprom,
watch dog timer, 256 bytes internal ram, up to 24MHz, ISP
communication, Uart, 3 timers/counters, two pointers (dptr),
9 interrupt sources, power off flag, power idle and power
off, 32 port i/o pins, flash memory programming via 3 wires
directly from PC parallel port, cost was $4.30 at Future
Electronics last month.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
Forum and microcontroller web site:   http:/http://www.ustr.net
Microcontrollers Survey:  http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm

1999\03\03@165704 by Clark, John

picon face
I am pretty sold on the merits of learning 8051 along with my PIC knowledge.
The sheer range of products supporting the 8051 makes it a no-brainer.  Now,
does anyone know of a good listserv where I can ask my fool 8051 questions?

** disclaimer -- I am in no way affiliated with this product -- disclaimer
**

I ended up ordering this cool 8051 programmer (which programs many of the
variants too):

       http://www.proaxis.com/~iguanalabs


** disclaimer -- I am in no way affiliated with this product -- disclaimer
**


John Clark, Software Engineer
.....JohnCKILLspamspam.....inter-intelli.com
(317) 715-8175

Interactive Intelligence, Inc.
3500 DePauw Blvd., Suite 1060
Indianapolis, IN  46268-1136
http://www.inter-intelli.com

> {Original Message removed}

1999\03\03@180258 by John Payson

flavicon
face
|1.  The PIC 16x does not support enabling many interrupts very well.
|For each interrupt you enable, you have to parse each interrupt flag.
|If you later want to disable that interrupt, you have to parse the
|interrupt enable flag during the interrupt also.  Interrupt response
|time is likewise reduced.

This would not be too much of a problem, except for those occasions
where it combines with #2 to make things a real pain in the butt (since
some of the interrupt-cause flags are only available in certain banks!)

|2.  The PIC bank switching and page switching overhead will make the
|code size of the PIC at least as large as an 8051.
|This flys in the face of Micro-chips' slick advertisements which show
|simple code excerpts and 'prove' PIC is fewer instructions than 8051.
|If you have a real large/complex program, 8051 code will be about the
|same size.

I've found that there tends to be a threshhold when using the CCS
compiler where programs that use more than 96 bytes of RAM suddenly
undergo a MAJOR increase in code size.  Placing temp variables at
the end of memory rather than the beginning certainly doesn't help,
but the problem is there regardless.

The 8x51 has similar difficulties when exceeding 128 bytes, though
compilers let you place seldom-used variables in the harder-to-access
types of memory.  The PICs that "share" the last 16 bytes among all
pages are a step in the right direction, though the scattering of I/O
in different register banks is still a problem.  Note that the 17Cxx
does not improve at all on this situation and actually makes it worse.

Perhaps the 18Cxx (if/when if ever appears) will solve these problems;
it remains to be seen whether Microchip will price it competitively.

1999\03\03@183208 by Lynx {Glenn Jones}

flavicon
face
At the risk of being shuned by the list, have you looked at the Atmel
parts? very fast (1MIPS usualy) and best of all they are Flash!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the PI-100 Club:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751
058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679

On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Clark, John wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> > {Original Message removed}

1999\03\03@235912 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
I am somehow quite new in PIC chipset, but with good knowledge
about other microcontrollers and processors since 1974.

Every tool serves to a focused application and only for that.
If you try to use a wrong tool, you will work more and the
result will not be the best you could do.
This is why I am at this list, to learn one more tool.

There is no such thing of "better MCU", it is like to compare
if the screwdriver is better than the wrench.

Counting, Timing, Looping, I/O control, so much vast
applications field that can be done by *ANY* microcontroller
without any pain or difficulties for the developer.

The real pain is in the tools you need to have to produce the
device you want, like emulators, software, debuggers, testers,
logic analyzers, scope, power supplies, boards, components.

With a good compiler and emulator it doesn't matter so much
what kind of MCU you are using.  It turns to be a small problem,
when doing simple solutions.

The 8051 has a vast family and this is caused by the simple fact
that it is an open architecture (I think), Intel, Atmel, Siemens,
Philips, and many others produce it and developed variances, to
try to turn this "screwdriver" part of a swiss knife.

When several compete to produce a better swiss knife, it is logical
that you will gain, pure and simple.  Hamburger is a success in
USA and so many other countries because everyone can do it.

The 30 years old 74.. TTL family, then CMOS, than this than that,
was a success since everyone could produce it, and everyone could
*use* it.  It was diversified so much at a point that today I don't
know very well which family I must use in some applications.

The 8051 family low cost is a windows by which you can see this
competence and market share fighting.

Who else produces the PIC?  How can you expect to see it produced
in different technology, brand, and a real price war in the streets?

Well, it doesn't matter too much, since you can produce boards and
use it as the right and good tool, by a reasonable cost, as it
deserves.

Microcontrollers with multi-partition, multi-ram memory banks,
accessing 100MB of memory with native IDE controller and PnP
I/O facilities  make part of a dream, not so far away, and not
so expensive, it is just a matter of time.  20 years ago nobody
thought it would be possible to carry a Motorola StarTak in the
shirt's pocket, and be able to talk to the World from the beach.

Just be prepared and learn all the tools available, you could
need a wrench while holding a screwdriver.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
Forum and microcontroller web site:   http:/http://www.ustr.net
Microcontrollers Survey:  http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm

1999\03\04@001358 by Tjaart van der Walt

flavicon
face
"Clark, John" wrote:
>

> So I guess the long-and-short of it is that I am evaluating at the Dallas
> 87C520 & a Microchip 17Cxx and wanted to get more experienced feedback as to
> how they compare.

If Mchip chopped the 17&XXX chips prices in half, I
would *consider* using them. I don't know of a worse
rip-off in terms of what you get vs. what you pay.

We are currently paying around 40% more for a 16bit
Motorola with 2k RAM and 50k *flash*, than what we
are paying for a 8 bit 16C77 with 392 bytes RAM and
8k *OTP* ROM.

I don't know how Mchip computes their part prices,
but the 17$XXX are waaaaaaaaayyyyyy overpriced.

The midrange is slightly overpriced, and the low-end
very well priced.

How much does the 87C520 go for?

--
Friendly Regards          /"\
                         \ /
Tjaart van der Walt        X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
tjaartspamspam_OUTwasp.co.za  / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                WASP International                |
|R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development|
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Mobile : @spam@tjaartKILLspamspamsms.wasp.co.za  (160 text chars) |
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686  Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973|
|          WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E          |
|--------------------------------------------------|

1999\03\04@092038 by Clark, John

picon face
Well, it is not cheap...

search.newark.com/part_detail.phtml?PART_ID=3765&VID=250&10005=06F468
9

About $15 in quantities of ~1000.  This is the 40 DIP, but the others are
similar in price.


John Clark, Software Engineer
KILLspamJohnCKILLspamspaminter-intelli.com
(317) 715-8175 (voice & fax)

Interactive Intelligence, Inc.
3500 DePauw Blvd., Suite 1060
Indianapolis, IN  46268-1136
http://www.inter-intelli.com

> {Original Message removed}

1999\03\04@101244 by Matt Bonner

flavicon
face
I'd probably be using an 80C51 (or variant) today if only Intel had
originally designed it using a fully static CMOS process (it had an NMOS
core).  IIRC, standby mode consumed about 4mA.  Philips had a fully
static 8051 family but didn't make extended temperature range parts.  I
stayed with the RCA 1805 until Microchip became readily available.

MChip may have its faults, but I really appreciate that when I pick an
MChip controller for a new design, I know that I can get it in any
temperature range I require.  (Except, sigh, for the 16HV540.)

--Matt

1999\03\04@104706 by WF AUTOMACAO

flavicon
face
8051 has many manufactures, and PIC have....1?

       Miguel

1999\03\04@131243 by WF AUTOMACAO

flavicon
face
An recent information that i receive is that the 8051 that was
microcontroller sent for the MARS...!!!?

       Miguel

1999\03\04@141942 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 12:45 PM 3/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
>8051 has many manufactures, and PIC have....1?

Fewer folks to make incompatibilities.

ANdy


  \-----------------/
   \     /---\     /
    \    |   |    /          Andy Kunz
     \   /---\   /           Montana Design
/---------+   +---------\     http://www.montanadesign.com
| /  |----|___|----|  \ |
\/___|      *      |___\/     Go fast, turn right,
                              and keep the wet side down!

1999\03\04@151924 by Marc

flavicon
face
> I'd probably be using an 80C51 (or variant) today if only Intel had
> originally designed it using a fully static CMOS process (it had an NMOS
> core).  IIRC, standby mode consumed about 4mA.

Why do you base your design decisions =today= on data that is
=decades= ago? There are zillions of CMOS 8051 variants from
various vendors.

I really like the AVR family and used it a lot in the past, but
yet yesterday I chose a PIC for the next project. This was due to
technical, not emotional or historical, reasons.

1999\03\04@151935 by John Payson

flavicon
face
|I'd probably be using an 80C51 (or variant) today if only Intel had
|originally designed it using a fully static CMOS process (it had an NMOS
|core).  IIRC, standby mode consumed about 4mA.  Philips had a fully
|static 8051 family but didn't make extended temperature range parts.  I
|stayed with the RCA 1805 until Microchip became readily available.

My second from-scratch 8x51-based device (and the first of which
more than one was made) had a somewhat annoying 500mA current draw;
it turned out that 300mA of that was the 8751 alone (NMOS version).
Replacing that with CMOS helped things considerably.


Attachment converted: wonderland:WINMAIL.DAT (????/----) (0002B78E)

1999\03\04@223538 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 14:17 03/04/99 -0500, Andy Kunz wrote:
>At 12:45 PM 3/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>8051 has many manufactures, and PIC have....1?
>
>Fewer folks to make incompatibilities.

have you actually found incompatibilities between different 8051 cores? any
at all, or at least more than, say, between different microchip 14bit cores? :)

ge

1999\03\04@233618 by Tjaart van der Walt

flavicon
face
Marc wrote:
>
> > I'd probably be using an 80C51 (or variant) today if only Intel had
> > originally designed it using a fully static CMOS process (it had an NMOS
> > core).  IIRC, standby mode consumed about 4mA.
>
> Why do you base your design decisions =today= on data that is
> =decades= ago? There are zillions of CMOS 8051 variants from
> various vendors.
>
> I really like the AVR family and used it a lot in the past, but
> yet yesterday I chose a PIC for the next project. This was due to
> technical, not emotional or historical, reasons.

I think you touched the core of the problem. It is hard
choose a part on its merits, and not on past experiences
with (lacking) P.R. , or other some emotional investments.

--
Friendly Regards          /"\
                         \ /
Tjaart van der Walt        X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
RemoveMEtjaartTakeThisOuTspamwasp.co.za  / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                WASP International                |
|R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development|
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Mobile : spamBeGonetjaartspamBeGonespamsms.wasp.co.za  (160 text chars) |
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686  Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973|
|          WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E          |
|--------------------------------------------------|

1999\03\05@010334 by Ron Fial

flavicon
face
My two cents re 8031 vs PIC:

I have used the 8031 and 87C520 for a number of our commercial designs (protocol
converters, databridges, alarm encoders etc).  You used to be able to get the 8
052 version with someone's obsolete code in the internal ROM (8K)  for $2.00, di
sable it and use external ROM/RAM, and build a very cost effective product.  Mor
e recently, the combination of the Dallas 87C520 with the Franklin 8031 C compil
er produces very good 8031 code.  Sometime we are astonished at how the compiler
did it when we look at the resulting ASM.  Note that the Franklin has some bugs
, but I believe that its 'understanding' of the 8031 architecture is unmatched b
y any other 8031 C compiler.

So basically, in our department, we use PIC for the simple/fast stuff, 87C520 fo
r the next level of computational complexity and RAM/ROM/STACK size, and the Mot
orola 68332 with TPU (internal timer processor unit) (we re-program the TPU to s
ync and async serial I/O) for the higher level embedded controller stuff where w
e are going to have tons of code and RAM requirements.  We wrote our own multi-t
asking kernel for all these processors except the pic. But the way this works ou
t is interesting.

Basically, a very simple product will have just a PIC.  A more complex one will
have an 87C520.  The next level is a 68332 with one or more PICS sprinkled aroun
d to do I/O and front panel light and switch management.   Above this level, I t
hink that you are better off with a DOS compatible processor so the real complex
apps can be done with high level tools and operating system.

The next chip we are looking at using is the Coldfire.  We are looking at Coldfi
re or ARM for products where we will need embeded IP protocol to do SNMP, etc. a
nd want to find some reasonably priced embeded TCP/IP stack software (yeah, don'
t all wish for that).

Footnote:  before the SCENIX came out, we had to use a Motorola 56002 DSP to do
some complex boolean type stuff in one project because nothing else was fast eno
ugh!  Using that much heat and # of pins to do IF statements was quite a waste,
but it got the product to the customer when they needed it.

Regards,
 Ron Fial

1999\03\05@091402 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>have you actually found incompatibilities between different 8051 cores? any
>at all, or at least more than, say, between different microchip 14bit
cores? :)

Microchip has been pretty good at maintaining compatibility between chips.
After all, they all run with the same 16C02/03 chip, which happens to be
the core.

Yes, on 8051.  There are several sets of cores which have different clock
cycle requirements for the same instruction.  Last time I looked at an 8051
ad, the mfg was hyping how they've speeded up certain key instructions and
added another register or two.  That makes it very difficult to do
bit-bopping.

Andy
  \-----------------/
   \     /---\     /
    \    |   |    /          Andy Kunz
     \   /---\   /           Montana Design
/---------+   +---------\     http://www.montanadesign.com
| /  |----|___|----|  \ |
\/___|      *      |___\/     Go fast, turn right,
                              and keep the wet side down!

1999\03\05@105149 by Matt Bonner

flavicon
face
I wrote:
> > I'd probably be using an 80C51 (or variant) today if only Intel had
> > originally designed it using a fully static CMOS process (it had an NMOS
> > core).  IIRC, standby mode consumed about 4mA.
>
Marc wrote:
> Why do you base your design decisions =today= on data that is
> =decades= ago? There are zillions of CMOS 8051 variants from
> various vendors.
>
I didn't.  If a sub-100uA (standby mode) 8xC51 had been available in
1980, I would have used it.  It would have vastly simplified design over
the 1805 and its associated external memory, UART, etc.  The subsequent
investment in development equipment, home-rolled code libraries, and
everything else associated with more than a decade of on-going
development would likely have kept me in the 8xC51 family.

When Microchip controllers became available, they seemed to encompass
everything I needed: low power, reasonably good compatibility within the
entire family, and extended temperature range in (almost) all of their
parts.  Sure - Intel, Philips, and others make an incredibly wide range
of 8xc51 variants, but by the time they introduced controllers that met
all my specifications I had decided on Microchip.  Also, I hate wading
through reams of specifications and choosing a controller, only to find
out that military or automotive versions are not in distribution.

We have invested a great deal of time and money testing the reliability
of Microchip controllers (and other parts) in extremely harsh
environments.  So, in a sense, you are right in that design decisions
may take decades.  We are a small company making high-end products - we
have found a component that meets *all* of our criteria.  At this stage
I don't plan on going through another multi-year evaluation and testing
cycle.

--Matt

1999\03\05@105159 by John Mitchell

flavicon
face
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Marc wrote:

> > I'd probably be using an 80C51 (or variant) today if only Intel had
> > originally designed it using a fully static CMOS process (it had an NMOS
> > core).  IIRC, standby mode consumed about 4mA.
>
> Why do you base your design decisions =today= on data that is
> =decades= ago?

You mean, like the 8088/80286/'386/'486/Pentium?  :)


> I really like the AVR family and used it a lot in the past, but
> yet yesterday I chose a PIC for the next project. This was due to
> technical, not emotional or historical, reasons.

!  Could you post a comparison?  I've been looking *very* closely at the
AVR vs PIC, and would appreciate your comments.


- j

1999\03\05@111539 by Clark, John

picon face
Excellent information -- I was indeed looking for various people's "general"
rules of thumb when selecting processors.  They all have so many features,
there is no "correct" answer, but your general order of attack gives me a
logical path to follow.

Thank you.


John Clark, Software Engineer
TakeThisOuTJohnCEraseMEspamspam_OUTinter-intelli.com
(317) 715-8175 (voice & fax)

Interactive Intelligence, Inc.
3500 DePauw Blvd., Suite 1060
Indianapolis, IN  46268-1136
http://www.inter-intelli.com

> {Original Message removed}

1999\03\05@135909 by mwalsh

flavicon
face
I've probably used almost all of the available manufacturers
of 8751's over the past 6 years in one of the products we
make.  AMD, OKI, Signetics, Phillips, and on and on.
Minor differences in current consumption on the CMOS
parts are the only inconsistancies I've found.

We've stuck with Atmel's 89 series for the last couple of
years.  Being flash reprogrammable is very important since
we do a lot of custom modifications for our customers.

If you look at the pin-out for the 40 pin AVR series, you'll
see the Atmel made it 8051 compatible.  I recently had do
a board that would run down to 4 volts.  The DS1232 we
use with the 8951 was a stopper.  I couldn't find good
replacement.  But using the AVR 90S4414 worked out
great.  It has an internal watchdog and the DS1232 was
replaced with a pullup resistor.

I like the low end PIC's and use a lot of them where they
provide a good solution.  But I don't feel any special loyalty
towards them or any other controller.  It's not always easy,
but I try to find solutions that aren't necessarily even based
on electronics.  When you do microcontrollers all the time
it is very easy to start thinking that they are the first, last, and
best solution to everything.  That tunnel vision is something
we all have to guard against.

Mark Walsh


Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1999\03\05@140834 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 21:57 03/04/99 -0800, Ron Fial wrote:
>Footnote:  before the SCENIX came out, we had to use a Motorola 56002 DSP to
>do some complex boolean type stuff in one project because nothing else was
>fast enough!  Using that much heat and # of pins to do IF statements was
>quite a waste, but it got the product to the customer when they needed it.

doesn't this sound like a candidate for a PLD?

ge

1999\03\05@141849 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 14:53 03/03/99 -0500, Ralph Stickley wrote:
>I would suggest the only reason for using the PIC is based on COST.
>
>i.e. If you are in 'low volume' environment, I would not
>go with a PIC Chip.  Saving a couple of $$ will not be worth
>the headache!

i don't agree here. there are probably a number of projects which simply
would not be possible -- in any volume range -- with an 8051. like low
power, small space and the like.

ge

1999\03\05@160458 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
Andy Kunz wrote:
> >have you actually found incompatibilities between different 8051 cores? any
> >at all, or at least more than, say, between different microchip 14bit
> cores? :)
>
> Microchip has been pretty good at maintaining compatibility between chips.
> After all, they all run with the same 16C02/03 chip, which happens to be
> the core.
>
> Yes, on 8051.  There are several sets of cores which have different clock
> cycle requirements for the same instruction.  Last time I looked at an 8051
> ad, the mfg was hyping how they've speeded up certain key instructions and
> added another register or two.  That makes it very difficult to do
> bit-bopping.
>
> Andy

You are saying that everything you can program into the PIC16C92x or
16C7X can
also be done with the 12Cxxx?

Evolution doesn't mean you need to increase the quality of the old
wagons wood
wheels by using some shock absorbers, you can change the whole set but
keeping
the same driver behind the wheel.  Today's computer behind the car dash
does
things we not even know about it, but we drive it by the same way as we
did at
the time of the old mechanical carburetor and vacuum spark advance
system.

A simple change in the crystal frequency can mess with your timing
routines,
and it would need changes in the software.

The implementation of new functions and facilities, thanks to the
entrepreneurs,
allow us to explore the new technology, reducing parts cost and board
real estate,
using always the old DOS assembler compiler from 10 years ago, without a
single
change in the "add" or "conditional jump" instruction.

For sure I would love to see a 8051 family member with internal 4k ram,
and an
isolated 32 bits asynchronous counter, as well a native imbedded
download code
for on-board flash programming followed by a flash page swapping.  The
actual
1k e2prom available at the 89c8252 is nice and pretty useful.  If I
needed to
duplicate the 8252 functions using a Z80 and glue logic, it would be a
not so
small board.

There is a problem with that wide list of models available, a newbie
don't have
a minimum clue about where to start and which one would be the open door
for
his correct self education.  I need to confess, I know some about PICs
and I am
here to learn more about it.  Even reading all the post here, and
reading
all the Microchip's pdf files, still very confused to decide quickly the
best
PIC recommended for a particular application.

--------------------------------------------------------
Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
Forum and microcontroller web site:   http:/http://www.ustr.net
Microcontrollers Survey:  http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm

1999\03\05@170934 by Andy Kunz
flavicon
face
>You are saying that everything you can program into the PIC16C92x or
>16C7X can
>also be done with the 12Cxxx?

No, but all 12bit, 14bit, and 16bit parts are close enough within the line
that there isn't a problem.

>wheels by using some shock absorbers, you can change the whole set but
>keeping

Hence the 14 and 16 bit cores.

>A simple change in the crystal frequency can mess with your timing
>routines,
>and it would need changes in the software.

But buying the "same" processor from another source shouldn't.  Or a new
rev of the same part shouldn't.

>using always the old DOS assembler compiler from 10 years ago, without a
>single
>change in the "add" or "conditional jump" instruction.

Yet there are instructions in the 8051 line which HAVE changed from one
number of crystal counts to another.

>There is a problem with that wide list of models available, a newbie
>don't have

Hence the PIC list!!!

>PIC recommended for a particular application.

Just ask.  Or hire a consultant who knows the line.  Or ask your local FAE.
We had an FAE for Motorola who told us to stick with Microchip because a)
the delivery on the part we would need would be erratic (it was an
automotive industry favorite), and b) we already had the C working quite
well on the PIC, and c) the Mot couldn't provide the throughput needed for
this application.  THAT's the kind of FAE you need!

Andy

  \-----------------/
   \     /---\     /
    \    |   |    /          Andy Kunz
     \   /---\   /           Montana Design
/---------+   +---------\     http://www.montanadesign.com
| /  |----|___|----|  \ |
\/___|      *      |___\/     Go fast, turn right,
                              and keep the wet side down!

1999\03\06@203702 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
>From Philips website:

"Philips Semiconductors today announced the first device in
a family of low power, cost-effective microcontrollers based
on the industry-standard 80C51 architecture.  The new family
targets designs that require low power consumption and a low
overall system cost, including emerging Internet applications.
The  51LPC  family is being introduced along with the LINK-51
evaluation kit, which includes emWare's Internet-capable
software.
The 87LPC764 has 4K bytes of OTP program memory and 128
bytes of SRAM that make it suitable for use with high-
level programming languages. The device features an MCU
core, which is fully compatible with the industry-standard
80C51 core, but has a 2X-speed mode where the system clock
is divided by 6 instead of 12. At 20 MHz, the 51LPC family
has throughput equivalent to an  80C51 device running at
40 MHz, minimizing EMI and power consumption. Additionally,
the 87LPC764 contributes to lower system cost and saves
board space by incorporating an on-chip power-on-reset,
an oscillator, two comparators and a watchdog timer".

To fulfill the curiosity, it is a 20 pin devices, can be
connected to your web browser, and you can read more at:
http://www-us2.semiconductors.philips.com/news/content/file_392.html

--------------------------------------------------------
Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
Forum and microcontroller web site:   http:/http://www.ustr.net
Microcontrollers Survey:  http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm

1999\03\13@224532 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
At 08:33 AM 3/5/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Microchip has been pretty good at maintaining compatibility between chips.
>After all, they all run with the same 16C02/03 chip, which happens to be
>the core.

What is a 16C02 or 03? I have never seen any chip with that number. Was
that one of the "original" PICs,maybe even back in the General Instrument
days?

Sean

|
| Sean Breheny
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
| Electrical Engineering Student
\--------------=----------------
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
RemoveMEshb7spamTakeThisOuTcornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174

1999\03\13@230152 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 10:44:36PM -0500, Sean Breheny wrote:
> What is a 16C02 or 03? I have never seen any chip with that number. Was

No, these are the bond-out chips that are used in the PIC emulators. They
are like a superset of all the 16Cxx devices, with access to internal
registers and able to be stopped and started.

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: clydeEraseMEspam.....htsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger EraseMEclydespamhtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3355 8333 +61 7 3355 8334
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...